Mumbai Sessions Court Refuses To Cancel Bail Of 51-Year-Old Businessman In ₹7.14 Crore Gold Smuggling Case, Says Silence Not Breach

Mumbai: The Sessions Court has refused to cancel the bail of a 51-year-old businessman booked for gold smuggling. The court held that his decision to remain silent during further investigation does not constitute a breach of bail conditions.

The prosecution alleged that Sameer Merchant, alias Afzal Batatawala, and his wife were involved in smuggling gold. A raid on a Kalbadevi shop led to the seizure of 10,706.65 grams of gold worth Rs 7.14 crore and Rs 1.80 crore in cash. At the Merchant’s residence, officials claimed to have found the house in disarray, suggesting an attempt to destroy evidence.

Further investigation led to a raid at the house of Mohammad Razvi, alias Aarif, where 3,772.38 grams of smuggled gold was recovered. The prosecution claimed Merchant was the mastermind behind the racket and accused him of non-cooperation after being granted bail, as he chose to remain silent during questioning.

Defence lawyer Dr Sujay Kantawala argued that Merchant was arrested on March 6, 2024, granted bail on April 16, and attended the DRI office 11 times thereafter. However, on May 16, he was detained under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act (COFEPOSA) and was released only on March 6, following High Court intervention.

The court noted that Merchant had been free for just a month before being preventively detained and that his silence could not be viewed as violating bail terms. It added that his 10-month detention during the pendency of the plea weighed in his favour.

Criticising the delay in the probe, the court said over a year had passed without completion of the investigation. “The investigating agency cannot insist on custody of an accused indefinitely without filing a complaint,” it noted, pointing out that Merchant had already been in custody from March 6 to April 16, 2024, and would have become eligible for statutory bail after 60 days.

Accordingly, the court rejected the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence’s plea, ruling that the cancellation of bail amid an incomplete investigation was not legally sustainable.